Remote access to a win2k box

D

DanNeely

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
4,492
Machine is a 1.5gig athon(preXP) being used as a crunchbox for einstien@home. I only need access over a personal lan so bandwidth consumption's a nonissue, I do however want to minimize cpu usage as much as possible.

I'm currently using tightvnc, but even at a postagestamp 1024x768 the host's using ~15% of it's cpu time to support the connection, at 1600x1200 it soars to 50%. Is there a more efficient alternative available?
 
I'm not sure it this works on 2000 Pro, but it does on 2000 Server. Just enable terminal services, and log into it using XP's RDP.
 
djnes said:
I'm not sure it this works on 2000 Pro, but it does on 2000 Server. Just enable terminal services, and log into it using XP's RDP.
Click to expand...

Terminal services does not exist on 2000 Pro. ;)
 
SJConsultant said:
Terminal services does not exist on 2000 Pro. ;)
Click to expand...

Correct.

To the op why remote in at 1600x1200? As far as a less cpu driver way you can always hook it up to a monitor and keyboard via a kvm. They even make them where it will send the signal over ethernet to another romm but they are pricy
 
I'm a resolution junky and 1600x1200's my prefered resolution (read as "my old crt won't go any higher") and would be effectively fullscreen.

The main problem I have with a kvm is fiscal. My parents are planning to replace thier old machine this year, and I'll probably be adding it to the farm as well. Beyond that, now that I can afford to I'm hoping to buy a new box annually. The older ones will probably end up running some flavor of *nix to avoid paying the redmond tax anymore than I have to. This'd preclude remote desktopping all of the newer ones, and would outgrow a kvm setup in fairly short order which's why I was hoping for a less cpu intensive software option.
 
ive been using symantec's pc anywhere for a while, and, if you can get your hands on it, or dont mind paying for it, id suggest that. if you dont want to pay, try realvnc. ive noticed that realvnc is faster than tight vnc, not sure why, but thats what ive noticed.
 
RealVNC is going to be your best option. It's fast, pretty easy to setup and best of all, 100% FREE.

You can pick and choose the resolution it outputs too, it doesn't have to match what the console res is set to. You can even set it up so that the remote connection has it's own desktop seperate than the console desktop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top